May 17, 2012

The juggernaut of Diversity-driven intolerance rolls onward. From the New York Times:

The boxing champion Manny Pacquiao and his associates on Wednesday tried to quell an uproar incited by an article on a Web site that addressed his opposition to same-sex marriage.... Pacquiao, who has won titles in seven weight classes, has endorsement contracts with several companies — Hewlett-Packard and Hennessy, among others. They conveyed concern over his comments to Top Rank Boxing, which promotes Pacquiao.

Pacquiao, who is the national hero of the Philippines, is also a serving congressman in his celebrity-crazed home country. He was portrayed in the American prestige press in 2010 as a great guy for helping ex-boxer Sen. Harry Reid (D-Pugilistic Dementiaville) win re-election over Sharron Angle by campaigning with Reid for Las Vegas's rapidly expanding Filipino vote.

At the time, I wondered if elected officials from foreign countries were really supposed to participate in American political campaigns, but I was apparently missing the point: Pacquiao helped Harry Reid defeat Sharron Angle, so that was no time for quibbles about little things like Pacquiao being a part of a foreign government.

But in 2012, since Obama doesn't want to talk about the economy during his re-election run, the press wants us to talk nonstop about about how hateful anybody is who has any reservations about diversity.

So, therefore, the knives are out tonight for a foreign prizefighter who expresses opposition to gay marriage.

The problem for the brain trust trying to campaign-manage Obama's Diversity Coalition is that his coalition is diverse.

For example, the media wanted to ride the Trayvon Martin story to help Obama win re-election, but then it turned out that George Zimmerman's White Privilege Card wasn't exactly in working order.

Obama endorsed gay marriage to bring in the Big Gay Money, and the press took that as a signal to End the Debate, to punish anyone who dissents on this most sacred of topics. But the first victim of the latest round of purges turns out to be the most popular man in the world to an obscure ethnic group that is important in rounding up Nevada's six electoral votes in November. Maybe the Filipinos in Nevada won't vote for Romney, but without the now-"controversial" Pacquiao campaigning for Obama in the fall, will they remember to turn out in large numbers?

66 comments:

rapsy
said...

Rather than point out that he never said anything about putting gays to death, which he hasn't, I'd advise Pacquiao to use the PC machine against itself: accuse his accusers of distorting his message because of anti-Asian/Philipino racism. The MSM wouldn't have any idea what to do with that. It'd be hilarious.

The evil of the New York Times seems to have a somewhat similar role to the evil of the BBC here in the UK, as a determinator and wellspring of acceptable/legitimate opinion. While the NYT does not benefit from a compulsory tax on the peasantry (everyone in the UK has to pay the BBC a License Fee to fund its propaganda), not is it constrained by any vestigial impartiality requirements.

Has anyone done outsider-perspective research on describing the current power structure within the United States? The New York Times appears to be very prominent, along with Harvard, with the Democratic Party and the State Department fairly peripheral - they seem to take instruction rather than give it.

I say they've gone from "Hope and Change" in 2008 to "Homos and Whores" in 2012.

Anybody who isn't ecstatic about gay marriage and the inherent superiority of the Gay and Lesbian People of the Rainbow are evil homophobes who want to bully and bash 24/7.

And anybody who doesn't want the government to take care of the Single White Ladies from Cradle to Grave and pay for their condoms, birth control pills and abortions is part of the Patriarchy's War on Women.

That's it.

Oh, and Obama is still the Black Baby Jesus and if you don't accept it you're a sinful racist who is going to burn in hell.

At the Barnard commencement President ESPN spoke of the justicey arc "from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall." It is funny that he sees fem suffrage & black activism as the warm-up acts to gay pride. Being a constitutional law perfesser he naturally understands that courts will eventually settle the E Uno Diversitum question in his totally farsighted favor.

Link itself is like a miniature classic: first there's the X Faces Criticism Over Z hed. Then they say one of the trendy Grove malls canceled something but really didn't. They should've worked in a quote or two from me though.

Libs are 'secular' and 'rational' but put holy gay halo over Obama as if spiritual to support 'gay marriage' and as if Jesus died mainly for 'right' of gays to marry. This gay shit is not a cause but religious crusade. Libs need to worship something and it's gayhova.

XXX sincerely regrets the recent incident at an XXX-sponsored event in Copenhagen, Denmark, where Mads Christensen, a local entertainer hired to moderate the event, made inflammatory and offensive comments about women. XXX has apologized and is actively responding to the community.

Even the lowest IQ aborgine in Tasmania possesses enough common sense to understand that "gay marriage" is a bad idea. It's the white cultural elite who are alienated from the rest of the human race. Pacquiao is just stating the obvious, which, in these times, makes him courageous.

"Pacquiao's opposition to gay marriage is religion-based, which is more "acceptable" than opposition based on a dislike of the gay lifestyle."

That depends on the religion. If it's because he's Catholic, that's not acceptable at all. But if he belongs to some obscure Mayan cult, then it may be. If the religion is "Eastern," even better. The more un-European the religion, the more its members are excused from PC requirements.

paradoxically, non-whites want to come to white america but as america becomes less white, non-whites will not want to come here. how many africans, asians, and arabs are moving to mexico? even mexers don't wanna stay in mexico.

so, browning of america into brazil-mexico will end america as favored immigration destination.

A man is thrown in a gulag cell. another man in the cell asks him why he is there, he replies "I spoke out in favor of Karl Radek." The first is bewildered, he states "I spoke out in opposition to Karl Radek.". A 3rd person in the cell steps forward. "I am Karl Radek".

Yes, but we should all be happy for this confusion and conflict if we have high intelligence. After all, there is nothing better than constantly being forced out of our comfort zones by people who don't look like us. Being beaten to within an inch of our lives by a hysterically laughing mob of black teenagers is a mind opening test of our tolerance. Of course, it makes us whites a tad unwilling to buy a home (unless it's a good investment), have children, and put down roots in a community that ridicules our culture and values, accuses us of racism when we defend our lives and property, and treats us like tax slaves, but no matter.

The only way to fight back against the institutionalizing of Diversity PC which preys on people is to go after individuals, whether it's an individual reporter, an editor, a network honcho, and make it a personal calling to account of their lack of professionalism and their downright bias and in many instances, bigotry. Turn the tables on them.

Anchors like Brian Williams of NBC, or morning show guys like Matt Lauer should have their feet held to the fire for their misreporting of the Martin-Zimmerman thing, for example. The editor that let the doctored ABC 911 tape of GZ's call be aired ought to be held up to ridicule and the anchor that got in front of the cameras and read the story ought to be singled out and harrassed.

Just bitching about the media's lack of professionalism does no good. It will take a concerted campaign to make at least two very BIG names, at least one in front of the camera and one powerful person behind the camera to lose their jobs in a very public way to get people in the media to re-think what they're doing. No reporter, no editor, no anchor, no network fears attacks against "the media." Only when one's name is shouted does one care.

Steve, have you read about this official in Baltimore who is sticking to his guns about the black mobs in the city? He's facing blow-back, of course. They are circling him like sharks.

Still, more and more of these stories are finding the light of day on the internet, Youtube, and even though I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, he did highlight how a VA city ignored the race angle of a black mob attack on a couple of white reporters.

They know Obama will be defeated this November. At least, they fear it...What we are seeing is paroxyms of White Guilt and Self-Hatred as the flat-earthers flagellate others in their own place.

Like April 1945 in Berlin, the True Believers are reacting to their inevitable defeat by irrationally ratcheting up their PC fanaticism. Expect many more Derbyshires hung from the lamp posts as warning to the defeatists.

Hitler eventually welcomed the defeat of Germany, since he determined the German people had proven themselves unworthy of his greatness. Likewise, should Obama be defeated in November, it will simply prove that America was not worthy of being lead by him.

Overlooked in all this is the fact that hipsters who never watched a boxing match in their lives have latched onto Pacquiao as a non-white non-black icon. "Dude, I LOVE Manny Pacquiao" is the equivalent of "I LOVE the [insert Asian/S. American band name here]". So this was especially hurtful for them.

Stranger and stranger. Now we are supposed to listen to the opinions of prizefighters - people who pursue brain damage as a profession?

Gay marriage is of course a non issue. A total irrelevancy. It could be that gay marriage in promoting fidelity among gays decreases the terrible death toll. Gay promiscuity is indeed deadly but marriages among gays are not very effective at decreasing the deadly behavior. Gay men die terrible painful deaths because of anal sex. If I though gay marriage was effective in lessening that toll, I'd be in favor of it.

Anal intercourse kills, but gay marriage just hasn't proven very effective it bringing it under control. So gay marriage therefore is argued on the ephemeral basis of personal preferences - the idea of calling gay unions marriage makes many gay men happy but it makes others (heterosexuals) unhappy.

I just can't get exercised over a debate based on simple personal preferences. It's like the Yankee-Red Sox issue.

Normally marriage has been an important issue rather like gun ownership. Slaves were usually not allowed either.

The Romans didn't rape the Sabine women they married them. They were looking for citizens. They saw marriage as a way to establish a their society. They looked to issues like property, family and inheritance. They looked to the future. As a slave owning society they were never in danger of being horny. They had female slaves. They wanted wives.

Homosexual men don't like to look to the future because they are not in it. For normal men sexual pleasure is tied up with reproduction. It all works out well for everyone involved. You have the fun of courting and pursuit. You have the pleasure of a stable home life with plenty of sex every week. And finally you get the deep satisfaction of having a pert of yourself living on in a future after you yourself have gone.

Gay men only get the pop of immediate sexual pleasure. They do not get their shot at immortality. That's a tragedy but it's not one that gay marriage can fix.

Also we should also remember that homosexuality is a disease that will soon be cured. I don't bother to worry about this issue because homosexuality itself is soon to be no more.

Sort of related, since when did Bill Simmons become such a lover of all things gay? His "Grantland" website has a ridiculous article from some Philipino hack lesbian writer attacking Pacquiao. What the heck is Simmons doing allowing his website to be used for such hackery? Very strange...

The Census Bureau announced today that white births are now a minority in the US. And besides a largely cheerleading article in the NY Times about this, I expect the topic to fall down the memory hole pretty quickly, compared to the gay marriage "crisis," which is in the news every single day. The gay lobby really is something for other issue groups to emulate--unlike Israeli ones or the NRA it's decentralized and more like a bunch of cells working in unison without any formal ties. If only the immigration control groups had such power, today's Census story would never have appeared.

a little bit late, but an idea for a TV spot. go out to the west side of Chicago with the "First Gay President" Newsweek cover with Obama's face on it and ask blacks how they feel about. I bit they'd be pist off at Sullivan. Think Newsweek was ripping their president.

Simon in London: those are exactly my perceptions on the NYT. It's the central place where "enlightened opinion" is manufactured and disseminated. Essentially it forms a united front with the Democratic party and they coordinate opinion-creation, election & legislation drives. The Wall Street Journal serves the equivalent function for the GOP.

Let's face it, this is no longer true. Due to the newer drug cocktails, getting HIV now means mostly chronic nuisance. I confess I don't know what the cost is for these drugs, and I suppose some people could be priced out, but here in S.F. there hasn't been much handwringing about AIDS deaths for many years, and this despite a reported dropoff in condom use, which apparently resulted from this new treatment landscape. Like Pat, I'm not excited by the issue, but I am angry that gays, as part of the RLC, have helped allow blacks to get out of control. That affects me every day, and I don't think I've ever seen an "out" crime-controller.

And they make running a country 100 times more complicated. As America's population continues to be diluted into endless factions of ethnic and racial groups, look to the USA to be the Austria-Hungary of the western hemisphere. America will become a mediocre country whose divided citizens lack a common purpose or any sense of a national project.

"Anonymous said... "Actually Israel is 80+ % jewish and the Israeli left is pushing policies that would insure demographic demise"

But most Jews there don't allow it to happen."

That's because the demographics in Israel are skewed towards sephardic and more observant orthodox etc. - in american terms roughly equivalent to Brooklyn jews (skew heavily republican in national politics) rather than Manhattan jews (the left wing of the democratic party). If Brooklyn jews-(who may well be an absolute majority of jews in USA, if not yet certainly in 20 yrs) were in charge of jewish institutions the "jewish" position on most matters would be quite different

The left has its sacraments, abortion and homosexual marriage, and its blasphemy, criticism of homosexual marriage. The left's ferocious witch hunt of Pacquiao and other critics of homosexual marriage reveals the hollowness of its claim of tolerance.

On a related issues, the birthers ought to have asked to see the marriage license of Obama's parents instead of demanding to see his birth certificate. It is not a surprise that America's first bastard president is leading the charge against traditional marriage.

No it isn't. 61-39 against gay marriage in North Carolina, and Obama tanking in the polls almost everywhere - trailing even among women in some polls. Especially after he "came out" for gay marriage.

It's shaping up to be the year conservatives get our confidence back. Even if Mitt Romney isn't himself really conservative, and does little in terms of policy to renew conservatism, his mere victory would give conservatives more confidence than we've had in a decade - temporarily, at least. Especially if Romney manages to win in places like Michigan, Colorado, and even Pennsylvania.

What happens if gays lose the ballot initiatives in Maryland and Maine? Chaos, that's what. Their every assumption is based on the notion that society is moving their way. What if it ain't?

"I'm not Albertosaurus, but I'm guessing it is because of a growing faith that Gregory Cochran is correct that the majority of cases of homosexuality are caused by pathogens."

Oh, I agree all right that Cochran's idea has gained a lot of converts, but even Cochran doesn't seem too persuaded that anyone's on the trail of the answer because, as he points out (or screams), no one's looking into that as a cause. They are still searching for the elusive gene set...

Fake Herzog: Perhaps Simmons is finding his inner ESPN Man after all. I didn't think him either homophilic or -phobic but anyone peripherally involved in Big Media can see the writing on the wall. However I gather he doesn't micromanage, doesn't rock the boat, and anyway is now a de-facto partner of some hardcore SWPL/AV Club types. The "open letter" piece itself was only mildly newsworthy and a dull read besides (the interlarded Tagalog bits were especially cloying).

There is a medium-length post by James Taranto today about the Pacquiao gaffe, which filled in some details I did not know even as an L.A. native, for instance that The Grove is owned by a local Democratic macher. Do-nothing golden boy Villaraigosa is normally enthusiastically on the side of gay money so whenever there's an opening you have to take your shot.

In other words, why so sure of this and how soon is soon? In my lifetime?

Yes indeed I did get part of the idea from Cochran. I was also influenced by Paul Ewald. These are the two fathers of what might be called the infectious gay theory. In part it is a reaction to the claims by Dean Hamer that homosexuality is genetic. That idea just isn't plausible.

If gayness were some form of polyploidy it would be visible under a light microscope. If it were a point mutation it would be far less frequent. With an almost a perfect reproduction penalty if homosexuality were genetic it would only appear at its mutation rate. Gays are around 3% of the population - much too high.

Hence Ewald and Cochran reason that it must therefore be an infection.

I thought about it and decided it cannot be a direct contagion. Gayness isn't catching. It is known to be inborn therefore it should be an infection of the mother that is passed in utero.

Homosexuality is acquired before birth and the sub-cortical structures (INAH3) are modified. This suggests a parasite. Many parasites modify the brains of their hosts. It's quite common.

As it happens the Toxoplasma Gondii parasite that cycles between cats and mice is very common in the brains of humans. When it is in the wrong host like humans or sea otters it has bad effects. It is a cause of schizophrenia and bad driving in humans. Every year science since about 1970 discovers new effects of this wide spread parasite.

There is also some epidemiological correspondence between T. Gondii infection rates and homosexuality rates, although this is only suggestive.

Cochran and Ewald are not responsible for this theory. They are professionals, I'm not. I can dare to make a hypothesis because I am just "the intelligent layman" or an "armchair philosopher".

Simom LeVay's studies on the gay brain are now twenty years old. No one follows them up probably because the gay community is offended. I have nothing to lose so this probable hypothesis comes from this improbable direction.

"Simom LeVay's studies on the gay brain are now twenty years old. No one follows them up probably because the gay community is offended."

LeVay disappointed me. He covered just about every hypothesis that's ever been thrown out there for the cause of homosex in his latest book (he even says in either the preface or chap. 1 that he will lay out even the most unlikely, illogical, unsubstantiated ones, yet he never mentions the one that theoretically makes the most senes, the germ theory of Ewald and Cochran. I was quite disappointed in him for having done that. Seems even a reputable scientist lets his gay bias get in the way. A shame.

BTW, I suppose you know this, but Cochran still thinks it perhaps even more likely to occur after birth, when an infant or child is bombarded by pathogens, that it may be an unusual side effect of a bug all kids are exposed to.

However, it is interesting that sometimes you find families in which it's not rare. I was reminded of that recently when I saw some old friends and discovered that the great nephew of a gay man was also gay. If it was due to some kind of familial connection to that gay great uncle, however, and not just pure chance, it went from the gay man's brother, who was very straight, to that brother's daughter, who then bore the gay son. Ewald does speak of germs that are passed generationally though or who are simply more susceptible to certain pathogens.

Well, Albertosaurus, keep up the thinking. You just might hit on it. If you find out a large % of gay men had a kitten when they were young, or played often in sandboxes and/or garden dirt, well...

"Due to the newer drug cocktails, getting HIV now means mostly chronic nuisance. I confess I don't know what the cost is for these drugs, and I suppose some people could be priced out"

From the January 2011 AP story Airman gets 8 years in prison in HIV exposure case:

"Dr. Donna Sweet testified Wednesday that the cost of HIV medication typically runs between $1,700 and $1,800 a month... with proper care and mediation, a 20-year-old person who contracts HIV can easily expect to live to age 70"

50 years * $30k / year = $1.5 million.

And a lot of that money is taxpayer funded.

Don't we spend something like $15-$25 billion on HIV research and treatment annually, not including PEPFAR?

It couldn't be because HIV wasn't really the cause in the first place, could it?

Well, no, not really. Duesberg at least debunked the "we are all at risk" meme, showing arithmetically that HIV hardly ever transmits girl to boy, but our admiration has to end at some point. Gays didn't stop using drugs, and there are still new infections, it's just the severity of the sequelae that's changed, and those drugs aren't targeting malaria. I used to see Duesberg almost every day having his pastry at the cafe across from Kroeber Fountain. Nobody ever came to talk to him.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.